All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for addressing all of the reviewer comments. This is a well-written manuscript that addresses an important topic. I have assessed this revision without re-inviting the reviewers as all comments have been adequately addressed and I believe this study is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Author,
Please address the comments from the reviewers carefully.
Thank you,
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
no comment
please, find attached.
Need some explanation about the experimental design.
no comment
It is interesting study.
The authors has explained concept of temporary nurse clearly including research problem.
In line 107:
please add supporting data to support the claim that psychiatric hospital has a better planning staffing
Line 117:
as the research variable, the definition of "nurses staffing level" should be globally understand. Thus, we recommend add citation to confirm this term.
Design and setting is clear, including variables and measurement technique
we recommend authors report data consistently (n, %) for categorical and (mean, SD) for numerical
To much words and pages, we recommend to concise this manuscript
(1) The English language used in this article is good.
(2) The intro & background is sufficient to demonstrate how this work fits into the broader field of knowledge, though it can be better motivated.
(3) Structure conforms to PeerJ standards and discipline norm.
(4) Raw data has been supplied.
(5) The work is not to test any hypotheses. It's self-contained with relevant results.
(1) This research is within aims and scope of the journal.
(2) The research question is well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is clear enough how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.
(3) The investigation is rigorous enough.
(4) The methods described is with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
(1) The reliability of the findings is good.
(2) All underlying data have been provided in a way which we can replicate. The results are statistically sound and controlled. There is no robustness check section in this paper.
(3) Conclusions are well stated. They are linked to original research question and limited to supporting results.
This is an interesting and well-written paper. I have the following additional comments:
(1) The authors should clearly explain why a study focused on psychiatric hospitals is meaningful. In the current version, the authors only highlighted the differences between psychiatric hospitals and acute somatic hospitals.
(2) The authors should add one section to conduct robustness checks. For cross-sectional data, there are still several methods such as Heckman selection model to deal with some endogeneity problems.
(3) The authors should carefully check the tables to make sure no typos. For example, in Table 3, the number of observations is not included.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.